A recent scan of eBay turned up several auctions like this one. On March 15, eBay user shakti_122 paid $3000 for an account in Earth and Beyond. On March 16 (as reported earlier here), EA announced that the world is going bye-bye, taking shakti_122's $3000 asset with it. Recall that EA has expressly rejected the possibility of transferring the world to others.
shakti_122 isn't the only one left holding the bag. There's devonis, daveup2bat, zaxam, storm2004, jj2828, and many others. E&B had something like 40,000 accounts. Total damages caused by the closure of this corner of space are not trivial.
So, again: Why doesn't EA transfer the title? The previous discussion hung up on the question of value - is it a game, and if so, the things that happen there don't matter, etc., etc. But eBay makes the eocnomic aspect of that discussion moot. Game or not, the economic value is there, it's tangible, it's real. Just ask Shakti_122.
And from the game developers' perspective, questions like this are precisely why it's seen as incredibly dangerous to attach/acknowledge a dollar value on account equity.
:)
Posted by: Scott Jennings | Mar 22, 2004 at 16:12
I'd like to comment that if you click the now -1 feedback rating Shakti_122 it seems this person scammed THEM and never actually bought the account or contacted the person. They were just screwing with them, perhaps because they were in the know as well? ;-)
Posted by: Lee Delarm | Mar 22, 2004 at 16:12
P.S. I'd like to actually continue my last rant and say that most all of the people you just mentioned seem to have MORE than enough money to flush down the drain and therefore probably don't care as to wasting $300 on this or that. You can see some of the other items they've bid on (mostly virtual game items and such, sometimes of vastly different genres) in their bid history profile (clicky that number next to their name and then the item associated with some of the more recent feebacks).
Posted by: Lee Delarm | Mar 22, 2004 at 16:16
P.S.S. And once again I insert my comment of if you're going to attach a dollar holding to something, make sure YOU control the market and take no customer service calls from people dealing outside your secure protected trade (i.e. your own eBay type trade system minus the eBay and instant transfer of in-game money/real money when auction finishes).
Posted by: Lee Delarm | Mar 22, 2004 at 16:18
>if you're going to attach a dollar holding to something, make sure YOU control the market
Huh? So I shouldn't attach a dollar value to my house or to the stock holdings in my pension? I don't control the market for those either.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Mar 22, 2004 at 16:23
Ted,
How does the statement "Electronic Arts does not have any plans to sell the source code for EARTH AND BEYOND" constitute "expressly reject[ing] the possibility of transferring the world to others"?
Do you really think that EA isn't open to a serious license deal? Do you really think they would post such intentions in a FAQ?
Jeff Cole
Posted by: Jeff Cole | Mar 22, 2004 at 16:49
Yes - but no one is going to shutdown the "Real World" (tm) because they don't feel like supporting it any more. Well.. might but at that point you'll have bigger things to worry about ;-)
Lee's point is that no MMO has ever promised that it will stay in service. Players just assume that the game will go on as long as there are a sufficent number of subscribers and 40k isn't bad... AC2 has less than 10k (estimated) and they're still going. So when you decide to spend real money on virtual items you're taking a gamble that the company will keep the game up long enough for you to get a return value of entertainment on your investment. By and large it's a fairly safe gamble... the number of games that have shut down is quite small compared to the number out there still going with tiny player bases.
In this instance bidding players lost the gamble. It sucks for them but as no game endorses, and most games "prohibit", the sale of items or accounts the company bears no actual responsibility.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 22, 2004 at 16:56
Jeff>>Do you really think that EA isn't open to a serious license deal?
They've said they have no plans to sell... but money talks. But they're a business like any other - ffer them enough and they'll hand it over. Does anyone have (or is anyone willing to pay) an amount that would constitute "enough"?
I think they're price point will be a shot in the dark since they are probably planning to re-use the code on a new porject.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 22, 2004 at 16:57
>Yes - but no one is going to shutdown the "Real World" (tm) because they don't feel like supporting it any more.<
They may shut down big chunks of it. Or try to. Not every such attempt should be permitted. And if God decided to shut down the whole thing tomorrow, well I think we might have grounds to complain.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Mar 22, 2004 at 17:26
Maybe this will make some people take notice that real life trading of real life money for virtual property is a dumb thing. There is nothing in the EULA or any sort of player agreement that the owners of the game can not just close the game at their whim, nevertheless terminate any account at their whim or devaule anything that might have been bought in the past.
Its the risk people take. Aparently, these people just got screwed. Them's the breaks.
Posted by: OnyxRaven | Mar 22, 2004 at 19:04
Scott> And from the game developers' perspective, questions like this are precisely why it's seen as incredibly dangerous to attach/acknowledge a dollar value on account equity.
Yep. If nobody can figure out how to shut down eBay, running this kind of business is going to get a lot more expensive and risky.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Mar 22, 2004 at 19:54
Lee> I'd like to comment that if you click the now -1 feedback rating Shakti_122 it seems this person scammed THEM and never actually bought the account or contacted the person.
Good point. Maybe it was a scam, or maybe he heard the next day that the place was going to close. Anyway, I should have tracked that down better; it does look fishy either way.
I think the other ones are legit though.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Mar 22, 2004 at 19:57
Jeff> Do you really think that EA isn't open to a serious license deal?
My opinion is based partly on what they said and partly on my overall experience with talking to developers about this. They seem really, really, reluctant to do this. So if they say to their current subscribers "we have no plans to do this," I believe the message is "don't ask - it is not going to happen." I could be wrong, though.
I think NASA should buy E&B. My impression was that space travel would be basically like that, except really boring. We could put people into E&B and let them land on a virtual Mars. Boom, end of space race and the wastage of billions of dollars and dozens of lives.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Mar 22, 2004 at 19:59
Oxyraven> Its the risk people take. Aparently, these people just got screwed. Them's the breaks.
Excellent point. Got me thinking: why not construe the accounts as investments with risk, and have EULAs that expressly limit liability for changes in account value? Take language from mutual fund accounts, in other words. Those agreements say "We will manage your money and if you lose every dime, that's just too bad."
This would imply, however, that users would have the right to redeem their account in some way and capture any increase in value. The natural way to do that would be selling to other users.
Again, I'm not advocating the marketing of accounts and goods, I'm just thinking of ways for developers to limit liability. One way is to completely shut down eBaying - then there's no evidence of real world value. If you don't or can't do that, you might be able to use this risky-invesment language.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Mar 22, 2004 at 20:11
Ted, I don't think I wouldn't want to us riksy-investment language as this would imply that the company view their service as a risky-investment. "See they use investment language, so it is an investment."
Also, closure is the worst form of permadeath. Is this the endgame? RL taking over the magic circle?
Right now, EA have establish their control and dominance over their VWs. The exerting their current right to "pull the plug and keep the plug off." Interesting to see how this affects outlook on other VWs.
Frank
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 22, 2004 at 20:39
>Maybe this will make some people take notice that real life trading of real life money for virtual property is a dumb thing.<
"real life" money is virtual too, and for much of the world the local currency is just as risky a store of value as MMORPG currency. Often more risky. But the fact that their wealth is at risk doesn't mean we should just say, "aw them's the breaks sucka's" when things go bad. When everyone in Argentina takes to the streets and bangs pots and pans we understand why: The people who were custodians of their economy did not serve them well. I guess in hindsight the Argentinians should have put their money in the less risky Norrathian Platinum Pieces in EverQuest instead of Peso's in the Bank of Argentina, but if you are conducting business in local currency that is a lot to ask. Sometimes people live and work in environments with unstable economies. That doesn't make them fools. Same for people who make their livings and otherwise engage in commerce online.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Mar 22, 2004 at 21:30
If I built a beautiful sandcastle next to the sea and put it up for sale, anyone who bought it would do so in the full knowledge that some time in the next 12 hours the sea would come in and destroy it. They would factor this knowledge into their calculation of how much a sandcastle built next to the sea is worth.
People who buy what they consider to be virtual goods do so in the full knowledge that what gives those goods meaning is a complex web of interactions between databases, programs and other players. When you buy the virtual world's most powerful sword for $5,000, you're gambling that the developer won't introduce ten thousand even more powerful swords the next day and ruin your investment. You're also gambling that the virtual world won't be shut down, which would also ruin your investment.
In the past, when people have been calculating the value of what they consider to be virtual goods, they have estimated the chance that their virtual world will be shut down as being so low as to be insignificant. E&B has now shown this estimation to be incorrect. People in future should revise the methods by which they calculate the value of what they believe they're buying. For new VWs, particularly ones from a developer with a poor or non-existent track record, the odds of a shut-down sooner rather than later are much higher than they are for long-standing VWs with a stable player base. SOE probably won't close EQ down while it makes them so much money (unless the courts force them). Even EQ will disappear eventually, though. The chance that a VW will close is, like the chance that you will die, 100%.
The tide is always going to come in. The only question is, when?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Mar 23, 2004 at 03:29
DrC >Got me thinking: why not construe the accounts as investments with risk, and have EULAs that expressly limit liability for changes in account value?
>Again, I'm not advocating the marketing of accounts and goods, I'm just thinking of ways for developers to limit liability.
I’m not sure how your idea limits liability as I thought Developers’ liability was currently zero.
Posted by: Ren | Mar 23, 2004 at 04:41
Peter,
Sure, lots of people deal with economic instability. Are we supposed to feel sorry for people rich enough to spend their time playing a game in order to try to make money?
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Mar 23, 2004 at 04:54
As many have pointed out, this shines a spotlight on an open can of worms. Risk in RL investment is difficult, but not impossible, to assess and manage. Stock brokers have their fundamentals and betas, commodities traders have futures and options. Right now investing in VWs is all but devoid of such tools; it's a Wild West out there. Risk in VWs is difficult to assess and almost impossible to manage. And it gets harder the longer-term the investment is. This should be obvious to any VW investor. But people still do it.
As more people get involved in VWs and trade items, trading and investing for profit is inevitable. It's already here as we know. Although it's not allowed in the EULAs of most games trading will and does happen. Due to this lawmakers will put down their foot hard when too many people get burned. In come the lawyers, liability, and increased start-up and maintenance costs. ie. higher prices for playing and fewer choices.
When VW trading and investment reaches serious levels (has it already?), game developers and/or players have to address the issue. This might come in the form of in-game trading floors or robust open markets (GOM is a budding example). Many say this detracts from the "RP" part of MMORPGs. But if we do not regulate the Wild West of Virtual World trading, governments will bring in their goons in bad suits and even worse regulations.
Posted by: astalok | Mar 23, 2004 at 06:04
Richard> The tide is always going to come in. The only question is, when?
Best post EVAR.
Posted by: Lee Delarm | Mar 23, 2004 at 08:25
The tide will come in for the US Dollar too, that doesn't mean that Alan Greenspan shouldn't try to manage it well and ensure that its value doesn't tank. If he opens the taps and starts 3rd world hyper-inflation and dollars become wall-paper, well, we have grounds to complain, and it is no excuse for him to say "you were taking a risk that I might do this", or "the US dollar was going to tank someday anyway."
I guess I don't understand the attitude that risk is something out of our control and all we can do is avoid risk or hedge against it. How about trying to minimize risk by insisting that the custodians of MMORPGS not capriciously wipe out hundreds of thousands of dollars of wealth with the flip of a switch.
Some people here work for game companies, so I can see where they are coming from, but for gamers that think this way it is almost like a Stockholm Syndrome has taken route. They depend upon their game providers for their existence, so they come to identify with them. Freaky.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Mar 23, 2004 at 10:59
'root', not 'route'
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Mar 23, 2004 at 11:00
Peter>>"I guess I don't understand the attitude that risk is something out of our control and all we can do is avoid risk or hedge against it. How about trying to minimize risk by insisting that the custodians of MMORPGS not capriciously wipe out hundreds of thousands of dollars of wealth with the flip of a switch."
Perhaps because no one ever meant for players to place real world value on virtual items. Anything MMORPG's can do to minimize "investor risk" will legally be construed condoning this marketing of virtual goods.
(cut and paste my comment from the other E&B thread)
Since EA (or any other company) doesn't support or condone the real world sale of virtual assets the true legal value of any in-game item is no more or less than it's value in that games currency. If both item and currency cease to exist then the value of both is irrelevant. Not everyone has an interest in trying to preserve the value of what are essentially black market virtual goods... only those who try to profit from the sales.
The value of items in other EA game economies or other MMORPG economies is the same as it will always be - whatever the market will bear. The shutdown won't change that much.
Had EA been in full support of players selling items to each other for real world profit then you would have a point - they set an expectation of value and they would have to be held to it. They, however, considered it as most of the world does... basically Monopoly money.
In the end it is just a game.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 23, 2004 at 15:13
"Not everyone has an interest in trying to preserve the value of what are essentially black market virtual goods... only those who try to profit from the sales."
I disagree wholeheartedly with this.
I do not profit from the sale, or intend to even sell, these virtual world goods. However, I have a vested interest in them preserving their value. I have spent time in these worlds building my avatar's capital. I want this capital preserved! I suspect so do all the other active players.
The existance of a $ figure merely allows a better understanding of how much avatar capital is being destroyed by EAs decision. Even without EBay, the same amount of capital would have been destroyed. (I do not think the existence of ebay makes my ingame assets more valuable - if anything, by easing the trade & allowing recycling of dead accounts, it likely devalues my assets)
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 23, 2004 at 17:01
Sourtone says: "Perhaps because no one ever meant for players to place real world value on virtual items. Anything MMORPG's can do to minimize "investor risk" will legally be construed condoning this marketing of virtual goods."
I understand that they didn't intend this to happen, but I don't see why their original intent should matter. The fact of the matter is that these currencies do have value in the only meaningful sense that we can talk about any currencies having value. So EA didn't see this coming? Well too bad for them and their short-sightedness.
"In the end it is just a game"
Thus the mantra is repeated yet again. But as I say, no matter how many times it is repeated you don't make it true.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Mar 23, 2004 at 17:30
Excellent discussion topic. The conversation, as often happens here, focuses on the monetary economics of the issue (and as such provides a useful handle on the topic), but its real impact is much broader. Edward lists a handful of eBayed virtual goods, whose purchasers are no doubt unhappy with the shutdown. But what about the other 39,995 players--many of which we can assume spent far more personal capital via time investment than the eBayers?
This is really the bigger ethical question, and it provides some interesting realignment of perspective on the money angle. A single player game, or non-persistent multiplayer game played on private servers, can be enjoyed without the approval of the developer. But when a company pulls the plug on a MMOG, it really is Game Over. You can talk about the contractual obligations all you want, but the fact is that those devoted players are investing and contributing in, and increasing the value of that world, both to themselves and the developer. In short, the MMOG developer is indebted to its paying customers in a unique manner which we have yet to seriously consider. Historically, computer games have been one-time business transactions. Now they can be ongoing relationships. If the sudden closing of VWs becomes too common a practice, people will become reluctant to invest in them in the first place, and "it's just a game" becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.
My two bits, as if the monetary angle weren't interesting enough...
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Mar 23, 2004 at 19:46
Copy of my post on the other E&B tread.
Perhaps some of us have the perspective that VWs should be public goods that should not be destroyed at the whim of a single participant. In one TN thread, securing public access to broadcasts of Cricket matches in India was discussed. In the other E&B thread, financial cost of E&B closure was discussed perhaps to determine a numeric amount of damage to put on a lawsuit.
Games are more than mere games when social interests are invested some may say. The phrase “no taxes without representation” should be applied as “no VW service without representation.” VW customer bill of rights should be drafted and other measures should be taken to secure the increasing and substantial value of VWs.
Are you a VW advocate or VW revolutionary?
Frank
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 23, 2004 at 21:16
Another issue that hasn't been highlighted (or at least I missed it) is that gamers are not just customers, but they are content providers, who provide much of the content that draws people into the game. I think a case could be made that there is an unwritten contract between the content providers and the game company to the effect that this content is being provided to you in exchange for you protecting our interest in the game. Otherwise, gamers effectively become slave laborers, working 40 hours a week for nothing (indeed, paying for the priviledge of being content producing slaves).
--VW Revolutionary
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Mar 24, 2004 at 00:18
Peter> Otherwise, gamers effectively become slave laborers, working 40 hours a week for nothing (indeed, paying for the priviledge of being content producing slaves).
My opinions on this are obvious, of course, but to be fair to EA, those players probably agreed to ToS that said that's what they were going to be.
Posted by: Cory Ondrejka | Mar 24, 2004 at 00:20
The ability of one idiot on the Internet to get some other Internet idiot to pay $3,000 for an account in a dying game is not a fair and accurate statement of the account's cash value.
Remember the main reason why MMOG makers don't openly embrace eBay -- they can't guarantee any sale as valid, and it's too much work given their business model to weed out the charlatans.
eBay sales fuck up game economies. Really, they do. Reducing the value of virtual items to real-world dollars cheapens the experience and runs the risk of putting us all on a slippery slope that ends with players hauling each other into real-world court for in-game happenstance. I'm only going to say that 1,000 more times before more people start getting the message.
Posted by: J. | Mar 24, 2004 at 00:56
Peter Ludlow>How about trying to minimize risk by insisting that the custodians of MMORPGS not capriciously wipe out hundreds of thousands of dollars of wealth with the flip of a switch.
So you're saying that the custodians of VWs CAN wipe out hundreds of thousands of dollars of wealth at the flip of a switch, so long as they don't do so capriciously?
Whatever reasons EA had for cancelling E&B, you'd have a hard time demonstrating that capriciousness was a factor.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Mar 24, 2004 at 04:40
Another issue that hasn't been highlighted (or at least I missed it) is that gamers are not just customers, but they are content providers
This was exactly my point. Focusing on the eBay/RL cash aspect misses the bigger picture that VW players make a public investment of time, creativity, etc. What the game company has the power to end is larger than the sum of their input. To an extent, they are custodians rather than simple owners.
What if Disney created a new theme park based on one of their movies, and charged a monthly admission fee. They provide costumes, a huge amount of land, robotic monsters to kill...They also encourage players to build new things themselves: they provide unlimited lumber, metalworking shops, and classes on how to use the materials. This being Disney, all objects are made of a magical substance that disappears if it is taken beyond the bounds of the park--but inside the park they guarantee the legal "ownership" and rightful use of what you have built or collected. Many people like the park so much that they spend all their free time building, playing, and socializing there. They get their friends to join. Occasionally, a house or other object in the park is sold on eBay, but that may be beside the point. The park expands and becomes densely packed with residents and items. Then Disney decides to shut down the park, evict the residents, and with a wave of the magic wand, make everything inside vanish forever.
Aside from the fact that the media would cover the event, what makes it different? The things aren't any more "real" than EQ items, the labor isn't any more real, though there may be more sweat involved. Contractually they may have every right (because the contract was never negotiated), and my inner capitalist says let market forces prevail. But my inner social philosopher thinks that such expensive failures cost much more than the monetary loss to the company and customers.
Posted by: Euphrosyne | Mar 24, 2004 at 12:15
J: >eBay sales fuck up game economies
That's like saying that black market currency exchanges etc. fucked up socialist economies in the days of the Soviet Union. I would have thought the markets were already there and that the Socialist block countries were trying to deny the existence of those markets, or legislate them out of existence, or otherwise eliminate them by brute strength. MMORPG economies are what they are, and they emerge organically despite whatever intentions the game owners may have. Each MMORPg has a market that reflects the demand for game objects, currency, etc. eBay is just a popular location for that market to be realized.
Richard:>Whatever reasons EA had for cancelling E&B, you'd have a hard time demonstrating that capriciousness was a factor. <
'capricious' is probably the wrong word, since it implies that their policy is unstable or subject to change. What I really mean is that their policy showed a lack of attention to the valid concerns of the gamers, to the community and economy for which they were custodians, and to the long term health of the MMORPG industry. Their strategy may have been rational from a short term, short-sited, quarterly profit maximizing perspective.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Mar 24, 2004 at 13:13
Peter Ludlow>What I really mean is that their policy showed a lack of attention to the valid concerns of the gamers, to the community and economy for which they were custodians, and to the long term health of the MMORPG industry
So you'd like to be able to insist that virtual world developers don't show a lack of attention to all these things?
Well let's take them one at a time...
Valid concerns of gamers: there are plenty of gamers who feel that their virtual world is spoiled by people who eBay goods. Should developers be made to address these valid concerns?
Community: let's suppose X% of E&B's community was likely to abandon it for WoW when it came out. Let's suppose that EA figured that the resulting (100-x)% would be to small to make E&B sustainable. Should they close E&B immediately, so as to stop things getting worse for those who stay? Or should they hang on and lose money indefinitely? And how come EA are obligated to attend to the community but the X% of players who intend to leave aren't?
Economy: they're not custodians of the RL economy. They didn't ask for people to buy and sell E&B goods, they didn't say they would support the practice, and they don't even want it to happen. They're no more custodians of the economy in E&B goods than the All England Lawn Tennis Club is custodian of the black market in tickets for the Men's Singles final at Wimbledon.
Long-term health of the MMORPG industry: shouldn't the industry be allowed to evolve?
Why is disposing of deadwood bad, rather than good?
EA showed insensitivity in what they did; they didn't seem to have particularly compelling reasons to do what they did; they didn't show much compassion for those who were hurt by what they did. People who are attracted to EA's virtual worlds in future would do well to think twice before playing them. Closing E&B was a bad move on EA's part.
That said, it's a move they must be allowed to make. You want to minimise the risk for the player by maximising the risk for the developer. VWs have to come from somewhere, you know, and if the price for opening one is a commitment to keep it going for all eternity, who in their right mind is going to do it?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Mar 24, 2004 at 15:50
Gosh. I agree that there are arguments to be made that there is real value in the intellectual content "created" by players in virtual worlds. But I disagree that the sword of head slicing +10 a player looted constitutes value created by a player. It's content created by a developer that has already been paid for (through account sales, etc.). As a side note, I don't think selling that sword to someone over Ebay increases the GDP as it's a used item. Right?
Some VW's are now providing basic tools for players to create unique items, but these also have a real world monetary tie-in (Doesn't "There" do this, some others?). E&B, EQ, etc. do not have these tie-ins.
The basic point we all seem to be glossing over is that buying something, using real money, from another player, that you were not willing to get using in-game mechanics to obtain or purchase is cheating. I really don't think there's any gray area here.
I suppose this is a moot point since it's interesting to use E-bay transactions as a method to establish value. However, I have much more sympathy for people that may have been earning an income by selling E&B game items to cheaters. They've lost a source of income. This seems to be a much more interesting thing to consider, as EA has taken away a portion of their livelihood.
Posted by: Alex Kell | Mar 24, 2004 at 17:00
>Valid concerns of gamers: there are plenty of gamers who feel that their virtual world is spoiled by people who eBay goods. Should developers be made to address these valid concerns?<
I guess as my other comments make clear I don't consider this a valid concern. It is nearly an economic law that these virtual markets will appear, and a desire that laws of nature (even economic ones) be repealed strike me as, well, invalid.
> they're not custodians of the RL economy. They didn't ask for people to buy and sell E&B goods, they didn't say they would support the practice, and they don't even want it to happen.<
Again, it is possible that EA was just incredibly shortsited and didn't see this coming. I'm not sure that kind of agressive ignorance excuses them from their responsibility. Now if they don't want the responsibility they can turn the game over to someone who does at fair market value.
>Community: let's suppose X% of E&B's community was likely to abandon it for WoW when it came out. Let's suppose that EA figured that the resulting (100-x)% would be to small to make E&B sustainable. Should they close E&B immediately, so as to stop things getting worse for those who stay? Or should they hang on and lose money indefinitely? And how come EA are obligated to attend to the community but the X% of players who intend to leave aren't?<
They don't have to hang on, they can sell it. I'm not saying that EA has to keep supporting it. I'm saying that they should provide a way for the users or some other group to purchase it a fair market value. I understand why they want to "put it our of its misery" -- they think the universe of potential users is finite and they don't want the surviving game to be a competitor to their next big thing (Ultima X I guess). But it wouldn't BE a serious competitor if the next big thing was actually better.
Posted by: ludlow | Mar 24, 2004 at 17:18
I have spent time in these worlds building my avatar's capital. I want this capital preserved! I suspect so do all the other active players.
No – most people are just playing a game.
This takes us back to divergent views on what exactly VW's are:
Some (such as I) see them as entertainment.... something to do for fun while being social with friends. To me, retaining my "investment" in a game item is the same as trying to retain my investment in Park Place in a game of Monopoly. It's ludicrous.
Others seem to see them as a job or second life of some sort. Thus you place RL value on things that aren't real and technically have no legal dollar value. Even if they were physical items they are still the property of the company running the game and not the player.
What exactly is this capital you are investing in? For something to be an investment there has to be some sort of return that can be expected. In a virtual world the only returns you can have on time and/or money invested in the building of an avatar are enjoyment or cash. Enjoyment should actually come from the building of the avatar and not be the result of “work” put into building it. If at any point a game is work and not simply fun then it has a design flaw IMO. So by saying you want to preserve the investment in your character the only thing you can really mean is that you want to preserve its cash value… which you can’t get a return on except by violating the EULA. Recall that you don’t actually own your avatar or his items – they remain the property of the governing body. You could try and say the same of real life but then you can’t sell your RL avatar except as meat for medical science after you die. You can sell your items but, with the exception of a very few items, no one guarantees their value is any more or less than what someone else is willing to pay for them.
We can philosophize all we want about how the games having social strata make them real places giving the items real value - and within that gamespace they do have value. Outside that gamespace the value is the same as everything else – whatever someone is willing to pay. No more, no less. Yes, our money isn't any more real - it is just as possible for the world to "flip a switch" and have our government cease to exist (hostile take over? Nukes?) and our money have no value... I'm sure it's probably happened. But there are no guarantees on our RW money or property – why should there be any on VW equivalent?
gamers are not just customers, but they are content providers, who provide much of the content that draws people into the game.
That depends really on the game. Personally I’m offended if someone expects me to pay to play their game AND provide the content for it. I’m not here to do the devs work for them, I’m here to be entertained – now entertain me! Why you’d pay someone to let you work for them without the promise of real world compensation just boggles my mind.
But as I say, no matter how many times it is repeated you don't make it true.
Sure – maybe my saying “It’s just a game” doesn’t make it so for some of you… but neither does you saying “it’s a real place with real people.”
If you actually find some way to force companies to treat VW’s as anything other than games then VW’s will come with too much risk for anyone to ever consider making another one. By and large the companies that make these games simply want to make money by entertaining people in a cool new way that seems pretty profitable... they’re not looking to create an alternate universe for people to live their lives in. You may treat it as such but then I could also use a butter knife as a screwdriver… that doesn’t make it anything other than a butter knife being misused.
Philosophy aside – what exactly are you revolutionaries asking for? What would you find as an acceptable way for them to guarantee the value of game investments? Do you mean investments of time? Of money? Both? You want them to refund any money anyone has invested on e-bay items? You want them to buy people’s avatars at the going e-bay value for an avatar of that class/level? I suppose they should do the same for items? For game currency? They should keep the world up and operate at a loss just because some people are still playing it and it would cost more to buy those people out than to just keep the game running? It’s fine and dandy to say that they should “minimize risk by insisting that the custodians of MMORPGS not capriciously wipe out hundreds of thousands of dollars of wealth with the flip of a switch” but then what other options do they have? You want to legally bind companies into running the game until the last player leaves?
VW customer bill of rights should be drafted and other measures should be taken to secure the increasing and substantial value of VWs.
If you want to make sure no major company ever makes another VW this will do the trick.
- VW Advocate
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 24, 2004 at 17:26
They don't have to hang on, they can sell it. I'm not saying that EA has to keep supporting it. I'm saying that they should provide a way for the users or some other group to purchase it a fair market value.
So they should be required to sell something they own because a handful of gamers can't seperate fantasy from reality?
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 24, 2004 at 17:26
Brask:
"I have spent time in these worlds building my avatar's capital. I want this capital preserved! I suspect so do all the other active players."
Sourtone:
"No – most people are just playing a game."
My entire point was that "just playing a game" does not mean one will be unmoved by the playground being repossessed. I find it insulting to claim that "just playing a game" is some magical incantation which allows any form of behaviour. If I were playing chess in a public place, and you came over and knocked over the table, would you claim that since I "was just playing a game" I should be unfazed? That I would have no grounds for genuine anger because no real harm was done?
Regarding Avatar Capital:
This consists of many things. We are content providers, to some level. I have written stories in UO that only exist inside of UO. Some stories that friends have written have been permamently lost due to the loss of the in game books.
On the other hand, we have more prosaic online capital. Being a non-ebayer, this capital is invested specifically in entertainment. Sure, I enjoyed earning it. But I also enjoy spending it, and would not necessarily want to earn it again. If I completed a very rewarding and entertaining day at the office, and you destroyed that days work, I would be upset. Sure it was fun to complete those tasks, but now I have to do it *again*.
Sourtone:
"Others seem to see them as a job or second life of some sort. Thus you place RL value on things that aren't real and technically have no legal dollar value. Even if they were physical items they are still the property of the company running the game and not the player."
This artificial dichotomy you have set up is misguided. The dichotomy isn't between game and job. Nor between RL value and no RL value. (Indeed, anti-Ebayers often note that ebaying reduces the value of in game items! (Which, in fact, it likely does - even in terms of RL dollars, due to reasons I mentioned earlier) Thus, anti-ebayers largely recognize that in game items possess RL value - they just don't want to see it traded for USD.)
If you asked me for a dichotomy, I'd say it is World vs Game. The Game players want a magic circle to protect their space. The World players see it is a sandbox in which players can create different magic circles, and thus requires no special magic circle protection of its own.
As for the issue at hand, I am strongly against regulation of MMORPGs, so disagree with Peter Ludlow on those points. EA should be willing to shut down their servers at a whim. However, I also strongly disagree with the typical mode of counter attack. EA shutting down the servers DOES have a cost. It *is* destroying value. Players, even if Ebay never existed, will lose value.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 24, 2004 at 17:55
We all gather around the campfire to collective tell tales. We have our individual motives and uses from this collective process. We also have our individual responses when the Kumbaya is broken. I think they are all valid. Everything else are "should", "could" and "would"
The developers as can do what they will with their creation. Nevertheless, value is destroyed and to a certain extent can be remedied through law.
The destruction of a "way of life" could be a more compelling arguement. Perhaps we can prove emotional hardship and sue for general and punitive damages.
On no one's camp, not even my own camp,
Frank
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 24, 2004 at 19:12
Fight for your lives! Your VW lives! They have souls! Don't allow EA murder your avatars.
Now murder would be a strong arguement....
On to all ya :)
Frank
Posted by: Magicback | Mar 24, 2004 at 19:21
If I were playing chess in a public place, and you came over and knocked over the table, would you claim that since I "was just playing a game" I should be unfazed?
That's not what I'm saying... it's fine to be upset about E&B (or any game you love) closing. I'm upset about it closing. I enjoyed E&B. I'm not even saying no one is justified in feeling some loss from losing their avatar - for many the avatar is an extension of self so some feelings of loss are natural whether the game shuts down or you close your account of your own free will.
What I'm arguing against is the concept that companies who shut their games down should be held liabel to all the players who view their avatars as financial investments and expect some sort of compensation.
In strict terms the company is providing us a service that we pay for. Our subscription cost is not buying avatars, the company retains ownership of any character created. It's not buying us virtual items, the company owns those as well. All the subscription is buying us is permission to make the time and effort investment invovled in leveling up the character and acquiring items. They can't compensate you for something you're paying them to let you do.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 24, 2004 at 23:30
Gosh, you know, after reading this blog I think if I were ever to produce even a small MOG I'd rather host it in some foreign country with reasonable laws that arent going to try to regulate my game economy or sue me because I inflated the value of x item. There is such a thing as a waste of time and IMHO it should be made clear to gamers up front that they aren't entitled to anything save a final remedy (account cancellation). Just for example, its entirely possible that I could pick up trash along the freeway 20 hours a week, but its not reasonable to expect compensation from the state for this 'job' I unilaterally took on. If people are going to make money selling virtual items, I don't see it any different than selling someone my parking place at a concert. I don't own that space, but if someone's foolish enough to spend money on it, let him take the risk. EA is not 'scamming' its customers by closing E&B. If they lose significant investment, that was their house of cards.
This is the problem with America, we are SO litigious and we are always looking up our own rears trying to establish blame for everything under the sun, not to mention trying to concoct new ways to protect fools and their money. I honestly don't believe that citizens should have some sort of entertainment bill of rights either.
Bottom line : (I agree with Sourtone) there's an awful lot of ignorant ways people can lose their money in this world, and MMOG investment is one of them. Why try to legislate a remedy just for MMOGs but not for every other sucker scenario imaginable? I'm not trying to sound mean, I just think someone who spent $3000 on an account has more money than sense, and they lost it, consider it an important lesson learned.
Posted by: Mithra | Mar 25, 2004 at 03:02
I am indebted to Euphrosyne for reminding us that the USD component of value is not the only one.
There seems to be no USD market for savegames (containing uber items and skills) from single person games, yet there is a huge market for well heeled MMORPG accounts. This suggests to me that the value of the VW wealth is not intrinsic to the items, but only in the context of what it delivers to a human being in terms of respect and gawping from other human beings.
Monopoly is an better parallel to MMORPGs than say Baldurs Gate. You might not be able to trade Park Place for USD, but when a grandmother trades it to her grandchild for a smile and a kiss, there has been an exchange of value outside the rulebase of Monopoly.
Sexy_Female_Avatar01 only gets gifts from male players when she is being run by a real girl and not by an AI.
A valuable item may be given away in-guild to further the ambitions of the group.
In each of these transactions, part of the "payment" is in out-of-game currency.
In my experience, eBay buyers are regarded as the lowest form of life, not so much because they use USD to acquire ingame resources, but because they then pretend to have acquired those resources within the game. The social value system is broken.
My Sword of Uberness may be just bytes on a server, subject to the whim of the VW developers, but the respect and affection of my ingame guildies is real.
This is the point at which any distinction between Real and Game becomes blurred.
I conjecture that is it that sense of loss of social value which will underlie the squeals of anguish from the doomed of E+B.
Two ideas:
EA could offer to host a series of chatrooms using the E+B account database, but with no VW behind it, to allow relationships and social value to be preserved.
EA could offer ex-E&B players a privileged headstart into their new game, based proportoinally on the uberness of the previous E&B character, thereby preserving the social capital of their most active and loyal customers.
Posted by: Estariel | Mar 25, 2004 at 13:47
Sexy_Female_Avatar01 only gets gifts from male players when she is being run by a real girl
Or a guy masquerading as a girl which is more often the case.... but the point is the same.
EA could offer to host a series of chatrooms using the E+B account database, but with no VW behind it, to allow relationships and social value to be preserved.
Not bad, but anyone who you were really firends with in E&B you've likely already setup outside lines of communication with. And a simple chatroom doesnt convey the same sense of "uberness" over lower level players that the 3d environment did. It certainly wouldn't hurt for them to do though and would be a very nice gesture. Of course that is assuming EA isn't some heartless coporate giant and, contrary to their actions, actually does give a damn about their players ;-)
EA could offer ex-E&B players a privileged headstart into their new game, based proportoinally on the uberness of the previous E&B character, thereby preserving the social capital of their most active and loyal customers.
I'm not real fond of this as it wouldn't be fair to other players of the new game (which is jsut speculation at this point) who have no experience with E&B or who already closed their E&B acocunts.
I could see maybe giving them some sort of recognition in the new game so they could recieve their "props" as it were... but only something representational - definitely not something that gives them an undo advantage or artificially inflates their level.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 25, 2004 at 14:48
Lot's of good discussion since I last checked in, much of it from sourtone, but going back a bit there is this:
Sourtone: "So they should be required to sell something they own because a handful of gamers can't seperate fantasy from reality?"
First, there is the question of who is failing to separate reality from fantasy. The gamers are not delusional when they say that their currency and game assets have real world value. They can even quantify it by looking at eBay prices. EA can SAY these items have no value, but that is the fantasy position, it seems to me. The market doesn't lie.
Second, no one is saying that EA should be compelled to sell E&B. I am saying that they should be given a choice: (i) keep the game running and do their best to protect the value of the assets, (ii) pull the plug but give the users fair market value for those assets (possibly an interest in another game with quantifiably equal value), (iii) sell the game for fair market value to someone who *will* try to protect the value of the assets, or (iv) give the source code to the players and let them find a way to continue operating the game on their own servers.
Again, it is no good to say "they own it so they can kill it". There are lots of things that we may own but are not permitted to destroy: healthy pets, historical landmarks, works of art, in some cases baseball teams (remember when baseball attempted to contract the league a couple years ago and Carl Pohlad agreed to, in effect, pull the plug on the Minnesota Twins for a price? -- it was no good for him to say "I own it so I can destroy it"). Now not everything can be or should be protected, but as a general rule of thumb we might think that objects and institutions that become highly valued by a large community of individuals can become things that are worth preserving in spite of the narrow interests of the owner. Clearly this is the sort of thing that would have to be argued out on a case by case basis, and there are good arguments on both sides of the E&B question. All I'm saying here is that invoking the "they own it so they can do what they want with it" meme is clearly just riding a false premise into the debate. Coupled with the equally false premise that "it's just fantasy value", one doesn't get much of a case for pulling the plug.
Posted by: ludlow | Mar 25, 2004 at 18:12
In response to Mr. Ludlow, I understand your idea here, but again its not allowing for such a concept as 'wasted time'. Players who play/work in VW should do so having gone in with their eyes wide open. They should understand that EA can and may pull the plug causing their investments to be lost. For me, this is a just user education issue. I'm really afraid that attempts to regulate/safeguard it from adverse events (game closure) by making the parent company liable for the market value of game related goods, this will effectively kill the industry. No company will bear the risk of developing such a game ; MMOG's will be safe for all mankind because there will be none, at least any with persistent and portable objects. The only traditional MMOG's that would be available to play would be foreign products that escape the regulatory umbrella.
Posted by: Mithra | Mar 26, 2004 at 01:23
Ludlow>(ii) pull the plug but give the users fair market value for those assets
This is exactly what they're doing. Fair market value for a virtual world which has closed down is zero USD.
If the Academy of Motion Pictures can reserve the right to buy back Oscar statuettes for $1, perhaps it would make you happier if virtual world developers organised something similar? Then you'd know exactly what it was you were buying and selling on eBay, and that if you paid more than $1 for it then the developers could just take it back and charge you a dollar less for your next month's subscription.
Hmm, if they closed the virtual world down they'd have to pay $1 for all your objects. Better make that a nominal $0.0000000001 then.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Mar 26, 2004 at 07:09
Ludlow>> "The market doesn't lie."
But it does after a fasion... the players do not have legal ownership of virtual items. If you rent an apartment do you have the authority to sell that apartment or even you rental contract as that's what Avatar puchasers are really buying? If you find that you can sell apartments for a given amount does that mean an apartment complex that shuts down would have to refund the potential sale value you would have gotten? Of course not - it wasn't yours to sell in the first place.
If players did have legal ownership of these virtual items then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. When I say "they own it so they can kill it" I don't mean the game... I mean the game and all virtual items and avatars in it.
There are cases, like in New York, where a landlord can't shut down a building if he still has tenants (I don't know the actual laws surrounding this but I think it works like that) - but I don't think you could get any court in the land to agree that a character in a game is the equivelant of a roof over your head.
ludlow>>"I am saying that they should be given a choice:"
It doesn't concern you in the least that getting some court to agree to impose any of these on EA would effectivly shut down the MMO genre? Except of course for those games already running who would now be to scared to shut down. Game companies are simply looking to entertain people and earn a profit... if it comes with to much risk (as those options you give are) then no one will want to make that venture.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 26, 2004 at 09:45
As soon as it comes a liability, MMOGs get shut down. Whether it be legal, financial, or otherwise, no company wants to be tagged with a product that could drag it down.
And it's probably a safe assumption to say most game companies are quite conservative in MMOG areas... a simple glance at the genres being developed shows that. The length of development time and costs of development makes it hard to take risks.
Having court involvement is very dangerous to the MMO world. Just look at the EA volunteer lawsuit and its impact on EA's support of MMO development since.
Posted by: Will Leverett | Mar 26, 2004 at 12:25
Sourtone:
"It doesn't concern you in the least that getting some court to agree to impose any of these on EA would effectivly shut down the MMO genre? Except of course for those games already running who would now be to scared to shut down. Game companies are simply looking to entertain people and earn a profit... if it comes with to much risk (as those options you give are) then no one will want to make that venture."
Game companies are already taking that risk, knowingly or not. There is also the risk that a government could conclude that their product leads to unhealthy sedantary behaviour, and they should be sued for billions of dollars in healthcare damages.
The best way to insulate yourself from this risk is to ensure when you shut down worlds, you don't do so in a fashion that will denigrate all the hard work people had done. The "Final Event" idea is a good one - EA should have invested more resources in a giant universe wide battle, or similar, so people will WANT to play to the final moment, and see things go up in flames. UO Beta did something similar where they summoned infinte daemons on the last day. In this case, people are likely to destroy all their value in the final confrontation, so when the servers are turned off, they don't feel they still have a L150 uber ship.
I think people are getting too hung up on the particulars of E&B. I think it is relatively clear that the current North American worlds do not pose sufficient public good to demand regulation. The community aspect could be easily replaced with one of the other existing MMORPGs. (Note: if there was only one MMORPG, which held a patent on the concept of MMORPGs, and it shut down, one could likely demand mandatory licensing. (Of course, I'd rather the revocation of said patent :>))
To me, some of the counter arguments don't allow one to reject out of hand this scenario:
1) That the company has every right to do what it wants with its property. Precedences for this are trivial to find. If the government wants to meddle, it can meddle.
2) That there is no value destroyed.
It is obvious that there is value. EBay is merely a symptom of the actual value that people ascribe to their avatars. If there were no value, there would be no stickiness. Look at the number of accounts being paid for where people rarely log in - that is sunk cost operating, which implies the owner still values the account's bits.
Saying closing the world reduces the value to zero is tautological. Smashing a Ming Vase may reduce its value to zero, but that doesn't mean that it had no value before hand, or there was no loss caused by the smashing.
3) That players have entered a contract that no value is present.
A contract where a party reserves the right to buy-back at a price doesn't mean that there is no value above that price. It merely means that so long as that part of the contract is not invalidated, they company can repossess with the given remedies. In fact, this almost guarantees that the value is higher than that price - or there would be no ned for the contract.
So, giving that there is value which is being destroyed, we are in the analogous situation of the destruction of a community center. Lots of whining from the members of the community, declarations of "we own it, we can do what we want!" from the land holders, etc. To get to the interesting question, when should a government intercede?
How big does a MMORPG have to be? If EQ had 100 million US players, and was being shut down, would it become an election issue? If VW transactions in Second Life reach an appreciable fraction of the GDP, could the special interest groups lobby that the Second Life servers have an unfair monopoly? Thereby demand a government ordered breakup, similar to what happened to Bell?
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Mar 26, 2004 at 12:40
Brask>>"Game companies are already taking that risk, knowingly or not."
Not necessarily. If it goes to court and a ruling is passed that says a players time and money put into a game avatar (and related items) are considered an asset belonging to the player (though the avatar and items themselves are not) and that the shutting down of the world requires compensation for that money and effort then yes - existing makers will have unknowingly stumbled into a risk venture. That doesn't negate my point however, which was that once it's proven that this venture is riskier than originally thought almost no one will make MMOG's anymore and those that have them will be looking for ways to get out of them.
Brask>>"The best way to insulate yourself from this risk is to ensure when you shut down worlds, you don't do so in a fashion that will denigrate all the hard work people had done. The "Final Event" idea is a good one"
I can agree to that.. while not really providing a legal sort of "out" it would at least bring closure to the universe and it's characters and sooth most of the irate custoemrs who feel they were left hanging in limbo... like when your favorit tv show gets canceled after 2 seasons without a finale episode. Overall it would just have been good customer service. Technically they could still have one but that would disappoint everyone who's already canceled their accounts.
Brask>>A contract where a party reserves the right to buy-back at a price doesn't mean that there is no value above that price.
I'm not sure what you mean here... you're not buying an avatar when you subscribe to an MMO. There's nothing for the company to buy back. All you're subscription is buying is permission to access the game world. You create one of their avatars, use it to run around the world, and have the option to improve it. That doesn't make it yours. By all rights money earned from internet avatar sales should go back to the company that owns the avatar, not the player violating the EULA. You're correct these avatars have a value... but it's still a matter of ownership.
Posted by: Sourtone | Mar 26, 2004 at 14:27
"The "Final Event" idea is a good one"
"I can agree to that."
I am convinced if you plan to remain in the industry for any length of time as a service you need to think past your nose and understand how to enter just as well as how to exit markets and sunset offerings.
Before writing that "Grand Finale" and EA-bashing comment on the other thread I browsed through Richard's book and was surprised not to find an "Exit strategies" chapter. I've read parts of the book and thought I might have missed it. But I couldn't find anything relating to games shutting down -anywhere- Did I miss a chapter?? Is Google broken?
Before we even get to a point on the thread titled "Should MMOG Players be Meta and Portable" about "...the claim was that the economics of the subscription business model will eventually squeeze out the Mid-range MMOGs." first the large players such as EA have to do a better job at managing their brand; subscription model or not, everything is meaningless if you project to use a brand to bring in the players and it turns out every time you sunset an offering you piss off a sizeable chunk of your customer base. You essentially enter a vicious cycle where you project massive revenue, invest heavily, accept large operational costs and then the brand fails to deliver the subscription base, which causes you to shut the offering down and take the brand down a notch. Guess what's going to happen if you keep counting on that brand name for your next offering? Rinse and repeat.
Posted by: DivineShadow | Mar 26, 2004 at 15:21
>And if God decided to shut down the whole thing tomorrow, well I think we might have grounds to complain.
Why? What does God owe you?
Posted by: jfarr | Apr 01, 2004 at 14:43